Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"The case for junk DNA"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I am sorry you can't stand information. The post you reference was 8 paragraphs, or a grand total of 589 words. Given the average reading rate of 250 to 300 words per minute, my post would have taken you at most 3 minutes of your time to read. And you would need to be a slow reader for it to take you that long (<200 wpm).



    You've not used those words, but that is the clear meaning of your words. You are better. I am on the border with Hell. You've said it quite a few times. Even started two threads on the topic (Can Christian be an Evolutionist I and II).



    Bottom line, I'm a terrible Christian. Get over it Jorge, that is what you mean, and more importantly, that is what you believe to be true. No use denying it. It's quite obvious.



    The issue here is not sin. The issue is interpretation as regards a secondary issue.




    Members of TWEB have been trying to get you to deal with those data points for years now. Of course I'd be glad to take a look at them with you. The problem is not on my side of the fence Jorge. You are the one that runs the other way and won't talk about these issues in technical terms. Feel free to start a thread on any technical topic at any time. Unlike your responses in the past, I'll be there, and without a long list of insults and diversionary sidelines. The ball is in YOUR court on that one Jorge.



    Sorry Jorge. Those craters on the moon - the ones that are hundreds of kilometers wide by the hundreds? They are inconsistent with a 10,000 year old solar system. As are the ones on Mars, and Mercury, and Vesta, and Ceres, and on and on and on ....

    Or how about those tidal tails in the magellenic clouds. Those are inconsistent with a 10,000 year old universe.

    Or how about those tidal tails visible in literally thousands of galactic systems.

    Or how about the shockwaves in Andromeda made by M32's passage through it some 200,000,000 years ago?

    Or how about the time it take light to travel from Andromeda to our eyes (2.5 million years).

    I shall stop there, but the list is, literally, endless.



    And how much physical evidence exists which directly contradicts those events? How many records from those places and times describe the events in question and tell a story which directly contradicts the scriptural accounts of what you mention?

    You are not recognizing that some historical events have been recorded, and others have not. Claims about the events that have been recorded can be tested against the evidence. Further the mechanism behind the event can only be ascertained if there is physical evidence. So we can't know any more than that the scripture describe the miracles you mention in the cases you mention. But we have records in the rocks and the sky as to the events surrounding creation. And so we can draw some conclusions about how they proceeded. When you claim the Biblical text should be interpreted to imply the world was created in 6 24 hour days 6000 years ago, we can test that claim against the existing physical evidence. And we can from that evidence determine that claim is false. Most of us that believe the Bible is the word of God simply conclude the text in Genesis as regards those details is not meant to be read so woodenly, and more than that a text which refers to the Earth being immovable should not be read as to imply it cannot be rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun.




    By definition, all claims concerning miracles are testable only after the event and only against whatever evidence they might leave behind. And it's not as if Genesis itself does not beg the question of how it should be interpreted! The church and rabbinical history is FULL of debates over how to properly understand that text. I don't think God expects us to behave as dummies here Jorge. He created the text in such a way as to ask for understanding. There are obvious issues in that text that beg for resolution. UNLIKE the other texts you mention here.

    No Jorge, it's just a simple matter of realizing this text, if interpreted as you think, simply doesn't describe the creation or the history of the creation we can observe. Most texts that have those kinds of elements are more obviously also a form a textual type that lends itself to the possibility of non-literal reading. But not all. And that is key. The Joshua text reads very literally, and for a more than two millenia it was interpreted to mean very literally exactly what it said - that the sun and moon stopped in the sky. It was read as both an observational AND a technical description. No more. Even you don't read it that way any longer.

    But the text of Genesis, even more so than the text of Joshua prior to Galileo, was recognized as having elements that begged the question: Is this text supposed to be read literally? I simply regard that question as answered most resoundingly "no". It is God's word, God just wasn't giving us technical information. That is what the debate is here. Not IF this is God speaking, but HOW is he speaking. One can only determine that by examining and listening to the clues we have which speak to that issue. And with this text, we have an entire universe full of information to help us clarify God's intent.


    Jim[/QUOTE]

    Wow - longer and longer and longer ... YUP, I'm convinced, you are employing the Elephant Hurling strategy so that I 'give up' and you then declare 'victory' when I don't reply. Go ahead, O-Mudd - have your 'victory'. As for my reading speed, I don't read this stuff as if I were reading a cheap comic book - I give it thought and try to grasp what the message is. That requires TIME - get it? Anyway, your errors above are Legion-cubed. Got'ta go.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    So now Jorge has brought Biblical miracles into the fray. Miracles have no natural explanation, and they defy laws of nature. The Bible brings in miracles to convey a special message for a purpose at one particular time. They are (ostensibly) verifiable as miracles to an observer understanding how nature work who then recognizes in an obvious way that something extremely unusual has happened.

    Bringing out the "miracles card" in a science discussion is like bringing out the "Hitler card" in a debate. It's a sure sign the bringer-outer has lost. Anything the doofus can't explain becomes attributable to "miracle."

    And for the 6Ka/6day/24hour creationist it the death rattle of any chance of proffering a "Biblical Creation Science". Anything said after that about how the geological/astronomical/biological/... evidence points to that cosmic history is worthless, since they've already said it's something that the natural sciences can't discuss.

    Of course, due to the abundance of evidence for billions of years and many, many episodes in the record of nature, one would have to resort to some kind of "grown creation" of some sort -- and not just Adam's Bellybutton or trees without growth rings, but a FULL-BLOWN trickster version of creation -- with UNNECESSARY evidence of time and events that never occurred and a fortiori for NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DECEIVE! (Unlike miracles which have an instructive purpose.)

    Jorge, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Ponder it and let it sink into your ossified noodle.

    Such arrogance, ignorance, and deceit I have never seen...

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support these and many other claims in Scripture? Yet you believe them, don't you? Why? Why is it that amongst ALL of these claims you single out ONE - the 6-day creation - as the one that you refuse to believe? DON'T be so naive as to say, as you always do, that it's because of "the observable scientific data".
    A recent creation and global flood would be expected to have left "observable scientific data" that would still be investigable today, and which could provide confirmation or rebuttal.

    The miraculous production of hundreds of fish butties would not.

    That's the difference.

    Roy

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Your posts keep getting longer and longer, perhaps employing the Elephant Hurling strategy.
    I am sorry you can't stand information. The post you reference was 8 paragraphs, or a grand total of 589 words. Given the average reading rate of 250 to 300 words per minute, my post would have taken you at most 3 minutes of your time to read. And you would need to be a slow reader for it to take you that long (<200 wpm).

    BTW, I've never said that you are a "terrible Christian" nor have I "lauded my wonderfully perfect and better position" - yet another porky from you (aside from your logical blooper - namely, how can I be both "perfect" and "better"?).
    You've not used those words, but that is the clear meaning of your words. You are better. I am on the border with Hell. You've said it quite a few times. Even started two threads on the topic (Can Christian be an Evolutionist I and II).

    What I have said is that - under the assumption that you are a Christian (a matter for God and God alone to decide) - you are committing multiple errors and those errors are weakening your own faith, the faith of others, and doing great harm to Christianity in general --- THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID. As a Christian that would not make you "terrible", just ignorant, lacking wisdom and perhaps needing direction. Now stop all your fibbing, O-Mudd.
    Bottom line, I'm a terrible Christian. Get over it Jorge, that is what you mean, and more importantly, that is what you believe to be true. No use denying it. It's quite obvious.

    Your lengthy discourse above, as you often do, contains elements of truth sprinkled amongst many distortions, misrepresentations and ambiguous statements. For example, right from the git-go you say, "... we are not bound under law or tradition." Well, yes and no - it is much deeper than your superficial, one-sided statement would lead a person to believe. To wit ...

    Christ came so that the Law would be fulfilled through Him and, also, we are not to be governed by traditions (fashioned by men). But then, you (conveniently?) forget what God says about this important matter throughout the Scriptures. For example, in Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." You've been "in bed" with Materialistic-minded people for so long that, just as they often do, you present only a partial truth - that which advances a specific agenda. I shan't waste my time with further illustrations on the rest of your post - the point has been made.
    The issue here is not sin. The issue is interpretation as regards a secondary issue.


    EDITED TO ADD:

    "Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?"

    Stop the Elephant Hurling. Take each of those "data points" one at a time and determine its origin (foundation) and its validity - start with that.
    Members of TWEB have been trying to get you to deal with those data points for years now. Of course I'd be glad to take a look at them with you. The problem is not on my side of the fence Jorge. You are the one that runs the other way and won't talk about these issues in technical terms. Feel free to start a thread on any technical topic at any time. Unlike your responses in the past, I'll be there, and without a long list of insults and diversionary sidelines. The ball is in YOUR court on that one Jorge.

    "... inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe"? No, not necessarily. It's only "inconsistent" if a number of things are arbitrarily ruled out --- a practice all-too-familiar to you people.
    Sorry Jorge. Those craters on the moon - the ones that are hundreds of kilometers wide by the hundreds? They are inconsistent with a 10,000 year old solar system. As are the ones on Mars, and Mercury, and Vesta, and Ceres, and on and on and on ....

    Or how about those tidal tails in the magellenic clouds. Those are inconsistent with a 10,000 year old universe.

    Or how about those tidal tails visible in literally thousands of galactic systems.

    Or how about the shockwaves in Andromeda made by M32's passage through it some 200,000,000 years ago?

    Or how about the time it take light to travel from Andromeda to our eyes (2.5 million years).

    I shall stop there, but the list is, literally, endless.

    But I have a much better one for you - in fact, I have several. Ready? Here goes:

    How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that thousands of hungry men, women and children may be fed - with more left over than at the start - with just a few loaves and fishes? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a man may walk totally unassisted on the surface of a rough, stormy sea? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a dead person entombed for several days, in a state of decay as evidenced from the smell (Lazarus), may become alive again? Need I go on - there are many, many cases, you know.
    And how much physical evidence exists which directly contradicts those events? How many records from those places and times describe the events in question and tell a story which directly contradicts the scriptural accounts of what you mention?

    You are not recognizing that some historical events have been recorded, and others have not. Claims about the events that have been recorded can be tested against the evidence. Further the mechanism behind the event can only be ascertained if there is physical evidence. So we can't know any more than that the scripture describe the miracles you mention in the cases you mention. But we have records in the rocks and the sky as to the events surrounding creation. And so we can draw some conclusions about how they proceeded. When you claim the Biblical text should be interpreted to imply the world was created in 6 24 hour days 6000 years ago, we can test that claim against the existing physical evidence. And we can from that evidence determine that claim is false. Most of us that believe the Bible is the word of God simply conclude the text in Genesis as regards those details is not meant to be read so woodenly, and more than that a text which refers to the Earth being immovable should not be read as to imply it cannot be rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun.

    How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support these and many other claims in Scripture? Yet you believe them, don't you? Why? Why is it that amongst ALL of these claims you single out ONE - the 6-day creation - as the one that you refuse to believe? DON'T be so naive as to say, as you always do, that it's because of "the observable scientific data". If you do that then you have to explain each and every belief that you have of all of the biblical claims without a single data point to support your belief.

    By definition, all claims concerning miracles are testable only after the event and only against whatever evidence they might leave behind. And it's not as if Genesis itself does not beg the question of how it should be interpreted! The church and rabbinical history is FULL of debates over how to properly understand that text. I don't think God expects us to behave as dummies here Jorge. He created the text in such a way as to ask for understanding. There are obvious issues in that text that beg for resolution. UNLIKE the other texts you mention here.

    And if you say that you don't believe in these biblical claims then ... Houston, we have a problem!

    Will you EVER get it ... I wonder. Clear as clear can be, O-Mudd... clear as clear can be.

    Jorge
    [/QUOTE]

    No Jorge, it's just a simple matter of realizing this text, if interpreted as you think, simply doesn't describe the creation or the history of the creation we can observe. Most texts that have those kinds of elements are more obviously also a form a textual type that lends itself to the possibility of non-literal reading. But not all. And that is key. The Joshua text reads very literally, and for a more than two millenia it was interpreted to mean very literally exactly what it said - that the sun and moon stopped in the sky. It was read as both an observational AND a technical description. No more. Even you don't read it that way any longer.

    But the text of Genesis, even more so than the text of Joshua prior to Galileo, was recognized as having elements that begged the question: Is this text supposed to be read literally? I simply regard that question as answered most resoundingly "no". It is God's word, God just wasn't giving us technical information. That is what the debate is here. Not IF this is God speaking, but HOW is he speaking. One can only determine that by examining and listening to the clues we have which speak to that issue. And with this text, we have an entire universe full of information to help us clarify God's intent.


    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Your posts keep getting longer and longer, perhaps employing the Elephant Hurling strategy.
    ---
    No, Jorge - Jim is employing the Trying to Have a Rational Discussion strategy. You should try it sometime.

    ...

    Stop the Elephant Hurling. Take each of those "data points" one at a time and determine its origin (foundation) and its validity - start with that.

    "... inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe"? No, not necessarily. It's only "inconsistent" if a number of things are arbitrarily ruled out --- a practice all-too-familiar to you people.

    But I have a much better one for you - in fact, I have several. Ready? Here goes:

    How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that thousands of hungry men, women and children may be fed - with more left over than at the start - with just a few loaves and fishes? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a man may walk totally unassisted on the surface of a rough, stormy sea? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a dead person entombed for several days, in a state of decay as evidenced from the smell (Lazarus), may become alive again? Need I go on - there are many, many cases, you know.

    How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support these and many other claims in Scripture? Yet you believe them, don't you? Why? Why is it that amongst ALL of these claims you single out ONE - the 6-day creation - as the one that you refuse to believe? DON'T be so naive as to say, as you always do, that it's because of "the observable scientific data". If you do that then you have to explain each and every belief that you have of all of the biblical claims without a single data point to support your belief.

    And if you say that you don't believe in these biblical claims then ... Houston, we have a problem!

    Will you EVER get it ... I wonder. Clear as clear can be, O-Mudd... clear as clear can be.

    Jorge
    It's "clear as clear can be" that you are a ignoramus and a coward.

    If you take the data points one-at-a-time you still get most of them fitting a Deep Time and multi-episodic scenario.

    Anyway "real" science, not the ridiculous crap you try to pass off, MUST consider ALL the points, and have theories that are consilient. 1) Do you know what consilient means? 2) Does the nailing-jello-to-the-wall dreck that you so pompously call "Biblical Creation" have consilence? Yes or no?

    When you take data points one-at-a-time you end with stupidity like the sodium ion residence time in the oceans gives an upper bound on ocean age of 4000 years. But when you apply the same logic to aluminum you get a few hundred years as an upper bound on the age. Duh!

    Now, I would really like for you to get back to the Biblical exegesis of the first Genesis story that is both literal and unambiguous. Wanna try again? Or are you too chicken?? Bwaaakkk!!!!

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    And so we have second post in a row where you have ignored the scientific issues AND have spent the entire time telling my how terrible I am as a Christian and lauded your own wonderfully perfect and better position before Him.
    Your posts keep getting longer and longer, perhaps employing the Elephant Hurling strategy.

    BTW, I've never said that you are a "terrible Christian" nor have I "lauded my wonderfully perfect and better position" - yet another porky from you (aside from your logical blooper - namely, how can I be both "perfect" and "better"?).

    What I have said is that - under the assumption that you are a Christian (a matter for God and God alone to decide) - you are committing multiple errors and those errors are weakening your own faith, the faith of others, and doing great harm to Christianity in general --- THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID. As a Christian that would not make you "terrible", just ignorant, lacking wisdom and perhaps needing direction. Now stop all your fibbing, O-Mudd.


    As I understand the Christian faith, we are not bound under law or tradition. Especially in the Protestant tradition. So assuming one of us has it wrong on this particular issue, it really doesn't matter in that our position before God is determined by what Christ has done, not our capacity to 'figure it all out'. There are issues of the heart that could actually cast one of us as 'better' or 'worse' than the other in a sense, but these would be issues of humility before God and the genuineness of our desire to please Him and seek Him. These are in point of fact far more important than our actual position on this issue (time frame/method of creation), but are simply elements that are for the most part opaque to us (even sometimes as it applies to our own self), and especially as it applies to this issue.

    And indeed, you do try to paint one of us as having the 'correct' heart and the other the 'bad/evil' heart. I prefer not to do that Jorge. Before God, we are equal, Christ is our savior. I can't decide that since you don't see things my way, it must be you that has the 'evil' heart and is not 'listening' to God. I've learned the hard way it just doesn't work that way.

    So can we leave the attempt at figuring out which of us is 'doing things God's way' out of the discussion. There is no information available to either of us that defines any sort of sinful behavior that would be worthy of dominating the discussion.

    And seeing as how this is the "Natural Science" Forum, would it be possible to discuss science or science related theological issues as oppose to which of us is the 'bad' fellow and which is the 'good' fellow?

    So, back to the issue at hand. Do you have any clue how to explain the observed correlation between theory and observation other than "it is happy coincidence"? Can you make a case for YEC that involves science beyond the fact that in any scientific theory, there is always some small possibility the data which lead to the conclusion is in some way misleading.

    And to that point, why do you think it is reasonable to assume that the majority of the hard sciences whose principles are applied to the historical state of the planet and universe would all point to an age far greater than 10,000 years and an evolutionary history of life if in fact that were NOT the physical reality of the same? How many stacks of data of that form (i.e. "yes is looks like this implies the universe is really old, but there is always this really tiny possibility it might be wrong") can you (or more importantly, any rational, thinking person) tolerate before you or they will make a reasonable visit to the idea your take on how to interpret scripture might be wrong?


    Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?

    Jim
    Your lengthy discourse above, as you often do, contains elements of truth sprinkled amongst many distortions, misrepresentations and ambiguous statements. For example, right from the git-go you say, "... we are not bound under law or tradition." Well, yes and no - it is much deeper than your superficial, one-sided statement would lead a person to believe. To wit ...

    Christ came so that the Law would be fulfilled through Him and, also, we are not to be governed by traditions (fashioned by men). But then, you (conveniently?) forget what God says about this important matter throughout the Scriptures. For example, in Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." You've been "in bed" with Materialistic-minded people for so long that, just as they often do, you present only a partial truth - that which advances a specific agenda. I shan't waste my time with further illustrations on the rest of your post - the point has been made.

    EDITED TO ADD:

    "Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?"

    Stop the Elephant Hurling. Take each of those "data points" one at a time and determine its origin (foundation) and its validity - start with that.

    "... inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe"? No, not necessarily. It's only "inconsistent" if a number of things are arbitrarily ruled out --- a practice all-too-familiar to you people.

    But I have a much better one for you - in fact, I have several. Ready? Here goes:

    How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that thousands of hungry men, women and children may be fed - with more left over than at the start - with just a few loaves and fishes? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a man may walk totally unassisted on the surface of a rough, stormy sea? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a dead person entombed for several days, in a state of decay as evidenced from the smell (Lazarus), may become alive again? Need I go on - there are many, many cases, you know.

    How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support these and many other claims in Scripture? Yet you believe them, don't you? Why? Why is it that amongst ALL of these claims you single out ONE - the 6-day creation - as the one that you refuse to believe? DON'T be so naive as to say, as you always do, that it's because of "the observable scientific data". If you do that then you have to explain each and every belief that you have of all of the biblical claims without a single data point to support your belief.

    And if you say that you don't believe in these biblical claims then ... Houston, we have a problem!

    Will you EVER get it ... I wonder. Clear as clear can be, O-Mudd... clear as clear can be.

    Jorge
    Last edited by Jorge; 05-23-2014, 03:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    ...
    Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?
    Jim, ZERO. That was easy!

    Now let's see Jorge get back to science. Ok, I know he'll say it's not "true" science ("Science falsely so called"). But it would instructive to see him point out the flaws in the interpretation of the data within the confines of the "untrue" science.

    "You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own data." Data cannot be ignored.

    This certainly gets confusing!

    K54


    Jim[/QUOTE]

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK !!!



    Say whatever you wish, O-Mudd, the proof will always be in the pudding. As a Biblical Creationist, I do my very best to take God's Word at face value, namely, 'literal' reading, 'literal' interpretation, no extra-biblical insertions and always using God's Word combined with a sound, time-proven exegesis/hermeneutic as the primary source to interpret God's Word. I know well and try very hard to always have in mind the importance of keeping God's Word 'pure' - with as little of man's (corrupt and evil) influence out of it as possible.

    You, on the other hand, take huge literary liberties with God's Word - specifically, you add, delete, distort, re-interpret, allow extra-biblical sources to trump the Bible itself, attribute literal communication as "figurative, poetic, allegory" and, last but not least, refer to God's Word as "the writings of a primitive culture". In essence you allow for man's edicts - his "wisdom, vain philosophies, opinions and science-falsely-so-called" - to supersede God's Word whenever this promotes your chosen beliefs.

    Based on the above, anyone with at least two connected neurons should be able to determine if my claim that people such as yourself "hate God's Word" has any merit. It does have merit, of course, but I wouldn't expect you to admit as such - not in a million years. Until you come to grips with that fact you will remain lost in your errors.

    Jorge
    And so we have second post in a row where you have ignored the scientific issues AND have spent the entire time telling my how terrible I am as a Christian and lauded your own wonderfully perfect and better position before Him.

    As I understand the Christian faith, we are not bound under law or tradition. Especially in the Protestant tradition. So assuming one of us has it wrong on this particular issue, it really doesn't matter in that our position before God is determined by what Christ has done, not our capacity to 'figure it all out'. There are issues of the heart that could actually cast one of us as 'better' or 'worse' than the other in a sense, but these would be issues of humility before God and the genuineness of our desire to please Him and seek Him. These are in point of fact far more important than our actual position on this issue (time frame/method of creation), but are simply elements that are for the most part opaque to us (even sometimes as it applies to our own self), and especially as it applies to this issue.

    And indeed, you do try to paint one of us as having the 'correct' heart and the other the 'bad/evil' heart. I prefer not to do that Jorge. Before God, we are equal, Christ is our savior. I can't decide that since you don't see things my way, it must be you that has the 'evil' heart and is not 'listening' to God. I've learned the hard way it just doesn't work that way.

    So can we leave the attempt at figuring out which of us is 'doing things God's way' out of the discussion. There is no information available to either of us that defines any sort of sinful behavior that would be worthy of dominating the discussion.

    And seeing as how this is the "Natural Science" Forum, would it be possible to discuss science or science related theological issues as oppose to which of us is the 'bad' fellow and which is the 'good' fellow?

    So, back to the issue at hand. Do you have any clue how to explain the observed correlation between theory and observation other than "it is happy coincidence"? Can you make a case for YEC that involves science beyond the fact that in any scientific theory, there is always some small possibility the data which lead to the conclusion is in some way misleading.

    And to that point, why do you think it is reasonable to assume that the majority of the hard sciences whose principles are applied to the historical state of the planet and universe would all point to an age far greater than 10,000 years and an evolutionary history of life if in fact that were NOT the physical reality of the same? How many stacks of data of that form (i.e. "yes is looks like this implies the universe is really old, but there is always this really tiny possibility it might be wrong") can you (or more importantly, any rational, thinking person) tolerate before you or they will make a reasonable visit to the idea your take on how to interpret scripture might be wrong?


    Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-23-2014, 12:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK !!!



    Say whatever you wish, O-Mudd, the proof will always be in the pudding. As a Biblical Creationist, I do my very best to take God's Word at face value, namely, 'literal' reading, 'literal' interpretation, no extra-biblical insertions and always using God's Word combined with a sound, time-proven exegesis/hermeneutic as the primary source to interpret God's Word. I know well and try very hard to always have in mind the importance of keeping God's Word 'pure' - with as little of man's (corrupt and evil) influence out of it as possible.

    You, on the other hand, take huge literary liberties with God's Word - specifically, you add, delete, distort, re-interpret, allow extra-biblical sources to trump the Bible itself, attribute literal communication as "figurative, poetic, allegory" and, last but not least, refer to God's Word as "the writings of a primitive culture". In essence you allow for man's edicts - his "wisdom, vain philosophies, opinions and science-falsely-so-called" - to supersede God's Word whenever this promotes your chosen beliefs.

    Based on the above, anyone with at least two connected neurons should be able to determine if my claim that people such as yourself "hate God's Word" has any merit. It does have merit, of course, but I wouldn't expect you to admit as such - not in a million years. Until you come to grips with that fact you will remain lost in your errors.

    Jorge
    The "pot-kettle-back" snark at Jim is very close to a lie. Do be careful.

    You have an extremely strident belief in your Bible interpretation. You should be very careful about being so brittle. It's not good for your personal faith and the way you share your faith with others. It's also a very strange position since you are unable to give a non-ambiguous literal reading of the first Genesis creation story. But, you're always welcome to return to my thread and give it the old college try.

    Why the cognitive dissonance?

    BTW, you owe Jim an apology. I'm confident that the reasonable readers of this thread would agree. Should I start a poll?

    Now put on your thinking cap, get down to business, and answer questions with content not slurs.

    Thank you.

    K54

    P.S. Hey, i just noticed you put "literal" in quotes. Interesting. Why?
    Last edited by klaus54; 05-23-2014, 10:22 AM. Reason: highlighting

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Poor Jorge. He can't face the arguments, so he just slams the person.
    Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK !!!

    Your "I don't know" reference is a cop out to avoid facing the obvious, not an admission of an actual limitation in yourself. I don't consider them even remotely similar.

    The highlighted comment is insane.

    A) You are talking about a difference of opinion about how to interpret the opening chapters of Genesis, not the entirety of the Bible.
    B) You are equating your opinion the the unequivical truth in the matter
    C) You are equating a difference of opinion over interpretation with actual hatred of the text itself.

    Aside from the obvious attempt to demean (I am a Christian after all, no Christian 'Hates' God's word), you need to take a step back and find a way out of what is becoming an increasingly intractable position in which you are the only 'true' Christian based on your particular view of Genesis. You are following a very bad path Jorge.

    Jim
    Say whatever you wish, O-Mudd, the proof will always be in the pudding. As a Biblical Creationist, I do my very best to take God's Word at face value, namely, 'literal' reading, 'literal' interpretation, no extra-biblical insertions and always using God's Word combined with a sound, time-proven exegesis/hermeneutic as the primary source to interpret God's Word. I know well and try very hard to always have in mind the importance of keeping God's Word 'pure' - with as little of man's (corrupt and evil) influence out of it as possible.

    You, on the other hand, take huge literary liberties with God's Word - specifically, you add, delete, distort, re-interpret, allow extra-biblical sources to trump the Bible itself, attribute literal communication as "figurative, poetic, allegory" and, last but not least, refer to God's Word as "the writings of a primitive culture". In essence you allow for man's edicts - his "wisdom, vain philosophies, opinions and science-falsely-so-called" - to supersede God's Word whenever this promotes your chosen beliefs.

    Based on the above, anyone with at least two connected neurons should be able to determine if my claim that people such as yourself "hate God's Word" has any merit. It does have merit, of course, but I wouldn't expect you to admit as such - not in a million years. Until you come to grips with that fact you will remain lost in your errors.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Huh???

    You must have joined Roland at the ol' vodka cabinet.

    Jorge
    You're not getting off that easy. Try again, reading for comprehension this time. It's not that hard if you try.

    Originally posted by Klaus54
    So sorry -- Not 'nuff for me.

    I didn't ask you about Deep Time. I stated that it was unexpected by early geologists. It was a discovery, and I was using it as an analogy for the discovery of "junk" DNA. Once discovered it became a topic for research, and further research is refining the results.

    And I was asking you a specific question regarding your position. It had nothing to do with disregarding the substantive points of your posts.

    The question had nothing to do with vestigial structures. If you want to discuss those from the standpoint of "Biblical Creation", then please do start a thread. In fact maybe I will.

    BTW, "revising history" as you call it, is EXACTLY what science does!

    Please do try to keep up.
    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Interesting indeed - that comment shows the 'stuff' that you're made of. Watch ... In this very thread, Post # 100, you find my words, "... I don't know enough at this time."

    Your hatred of God's Word as it was written and intended to communicate blinds you to the truth and, as a result, gives you a distorted, false view of the world including people. You are to be pitied, O-Mudd.

    The rest of your post was ... uhmmm ... ignored on the grounds of uselessness.

    Jorge
    Poor Jorge. He can't face the arguments, so he just slams the person.

    Your "I don't know" reference is a cop out to avoid facing the obvious, not an admission of an actual limitation in yourself. I don't consider them even remotely similar.

    The highlighted comment is insane.

    A) You are talking about a difference of opinion about how to interpret the opening chapters of Genesis, not the entirety of the Bible.
    B) You are equating your opinion the the unequivical truth in the matter
    C) You are equating a difference of opinion over interpretation with actual hatred of the text itself.

    Aside from the obvious attempt to demean (I am a Christian after all, no Christian 'Hates' God's word), you need to take a step back and find a way out of what is becoming an increasingly intractable position in which you are the only 'true' Christian based on your particular view of Genesis. You are following a very bad path Jorge.

    Jim


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-22-2014, 06:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    So sorry -- Not 'nuff for me.

    I didn't ask you about Deep Time. I stated that it was unexpected by early geologists. It was a discovery, and I was using it as an analogy for the discovery of "junk" DNA. Once discovered it became a topic for research, and further research is refining the results.

    And I was asking you a specific question regarding your position. It had nothing to do with disregarding the substantive points of your posts.

    The question had nothing to do with vestigial structures. If you want to discuss those from the standpoint of "Biblical Creation", then please do start a thread. In fact maybe I will.

    BTW, "revising history" as you call it, is EXACTLY what science does!

    Please do try to keep up.

    K54
    Huh???

    You must have joined Roland at the ol' vodka cabinet.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Nope - you are merely employing the REV (Revised Evolutionary Version) regarding the history of "junk DNA" and deep time.

    On the first there were hundreds if not thousands of articles, papers, etc. loudly touting "junk DNA" as "proof" of Evolutionary history. What your blinded fanaticism for Evolutionism prohibits you from realizing (much less accepting) is that "junk" is mostly a matter of interpretation / ignorance. Not knowing how something works - the role it plays; its primary, secondary, tertiary or other level functions - does not make it "junk". It is given that interpretation, and the 'scientific' community accepts it as such, because it serves the reigning ideological paradigm - Evolutionism. Our combined ignorance is today great enough that Evolutionists can get away with calling it "junk". But that is changing - slowly but surely. For instance, Evolutionists will ask, "So what is its function?" When no one can answer they say, "Aha! You see, it's junk!" Refer now to my statement above. A few years go by, critical function for this DNA is discovered, and the Evolutionists quickly and quietly revise history in order to hide the goof caused by their Evolutionary premise. But whatever the evidence, Evolutionists will NEVER abandon their religious beliefs in Evolutionism.

    Exactly the same thing happened with the so-called "vestigial organs". Once many of these were also loudly touted as "proof of Evolution" - "discarded remnants of an Evolutionary history". Remember that? [Of course you won't remember - it wouldn't serve your cause to remember] Well, as years went by the list of vestigial organs got shorter and shorter and shorter until it's all but vanished today. Did this FACT cause Evolutionists to concede - or even to consider the possibility - that theirs is a FAILED paradigm? Are you kidding?

    By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you disregarded the more substantive points of my previous post - an entirely predictable outcome.

    On the second (deep time), I can think of no better source than Mortenson's and Ury's book, Coming to Grips with Genesis. It presents a very clear history of the actual introduction of 'deep time' with hundreds of references. 'Nuff said.

    Now go away.

    Jorge
    So sorry -- Not 'nuff for me.

    I didn't ask you about Deep Time. I stated that it was unexpected by early geologists. It was a discovery, and I was using it as an analogy for the discovery of "junk" DNA. Once discovered it became a topic for research, and further research is refining the results.

    And I was asking you a specific question regarding your position. It had nothing to do with disregarding the substantive points of your posts.

    The question had nothing to do with vestigial structures. If you want to discuss those from the standpoint of "Biblical Creation", then please do start a thread. In fact maybe I will.

    BTW, "revising history" as you call it, is EXACTLY what science does!

    Please do try to keep up.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Wasn't that the "ideology" of genetic researchers at the beginning? The "junk" was unexpected. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

    Same deal with Deep Time. The expectation of the 18th century geologists was to find evidence of the Noahic Fludde. Evidence of multiple episodes with a time frame much larger than 6,000 years was a "surprise".

    Evidence drives science, not ideology. The converse is how creationism works. But you know that already.

    K54
    Nope - you are merely employing the REV (Revised Evolutionary Version) regarding the history of "junk DNA" and deep time.

    On the first there were hundreds if not thousands of articles, papers, etc. loudly touting "junk DNA" as "proof" of Evolutionary history. What your blinded fanaticism for Evolutionism prohibits you from realizing (much less accepting) is that "junk" is mostly a matter of interpretation / ignorance. Not knowing how something works - the role it plays; its primary, secondary, tertiary or other level functions - does not make it "junk". It is given that interpretation, and the 'scientific' community accepts it as such, because it serves the reigning ideological paradigm - Evolutionism. Our combined ignorance is today great enough that Evolutionists can get away with calling it "junk". But that is changing - slowly but surely. For instance, Evolutionists will ask, "So what is its function?" When no one can answer they say, "Aha! You see, it's junk!" Refer now to my statement above. A few years go by, critical function for this DNA is discovered, and the Evolutionists quickly and quietly revise history in order to hide the goof caused by their Evolutionary premise. But whatever the evidence, Evolutionists will NEVER abandon their religious beliefs in Evolutionism.

    Exactly the same thing happened with the so-called "vestigial organs". Once many of these were also loudly touted as "proof of Evolution" - "discarded remnants of an Evolutionary history". Remember that? [Of course you won't remember - it wouldn't serve your cause to remember] Well, as years went by the list of vestigial organs got shorter and shorter and shorter until it's all but vanished today. Did this FACT cause Evolutionists to concede - or even to consider the possibility - that theirs is a FAILED paradigm? Are you kidding?

    By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you disregarded the more substantive points of my previous post - an entirely predictable outcome.

    On the second (deep time), I can think of no better source than Mortenson's and Ury's book, Coming to Grips with Genesis. It presents a very clear history of the actual introduction of 'deep time' with hundreds of references. 'Nuff said.

    Now go away.

    Jorge
    Last edited by Jorge; 05-22-2014, 01:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 12-02-2021, 09:14 AM
1 response
14 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by Roy, 12-02-2021, 06:58 AM
9 responses
64 views
0 likes
Last Post mossrose  
Started by rogue06, 12-01-2021, 08:26 AM
25 responses
104 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by lee_merrill, 11-30-2021, 08:03 PM
21 responses
81 views
0 likes
Last Post TheLurch  
Started by shunyadragon, 11-30-2021, 08:10 AM
2 responses
16 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X